Author Topic: Digging Deeper  (Read 13795 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42925
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #225 on: November 16, 2010, 02:49:32 PM »
Someone notes that I have reservations about Facebook and then says:
There are those of us who, while enjoying the discussion, see no reason why you would need to know who we are.  What we have to say stands, regardless of what our username is on this site..

I comment:
No, it does not "stand," no matter what your username is. You could be an Opus Dei Roman Catholic, a Utah survivalist, a 13-year old geek, a nerdy troublemaker, a woman in her 90s still nursing a grudge because her Lutheran pastor husband had a fling with the church secretary back in 1952, an atheist, a universalist, or a Russian spy.
I ask again: someone give me a good reason for not participating here under their own name. (I was given a good reason by one participant and I respect that, but it is a highly-unusual situation.)
I was all set to ignore this, because Esteemed Moderator Johnson previously dealt with this issue (again), but I cannot let your above pass, as it's just plain obnoxious.  Let me ask you a question:  why do YOU need to know the real name of all participants in this forum?  Why don't you justify your need to know first?  

For the same reason that anonymous complaints should not be allowed in congregations.
This isn't a congregation.

However, just as a congregation is a relationship of people where anonymity can be destructive to communication, so it is discouraged or even forbidden; so also, this forum is a relationship of communication, where anonymity can be destructive, so why shouldn't it be discouraged?
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42925
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #226 on: November 16, 2010, 02:52:46 PM »
Because as the latest Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich edition states: the Greek word "gener. of a young woman of marriageable age." While such a young woman is usually a virgin, that is not necessarily part of the word's definition. Loew and Nida point out that the word is used of widows and widowers who are no longer married, but who are most likely not virgins. Thus, the primary meaning of the word is "unmarried" -- and usually used of young girls.
...Thereby ignoring ALL previous editions of BAGD, which I quoted previously, by the way, to which I do not recall a response from you on.  Its a simple question:  Do you have the faith to accept 2000 years of interpretation and history, or not?

I have faith in God who revealed truths primarily through scriptures, secondarily through history, and also in the present day. I believe that we have been given truths today by God that are not in conflict with scriptures, but differ from our tradition, e.g., ordination of married and remarried folks, and women.

The latest BDAG is different from previous ones. It follows a pattern that Loew and Nida do in their Lexicon, which makes a distinction between definitions and glosses. Definitions are what the word means, and in BDAG, they are in bold print. Glosses are suggested ways that the word might be translated, they are in italics.

In case of παρθένος, BDAG also distinguishes a general definition and a more limited definition "in our lit."

gener. of a young woman of marriageable age, w. or without focus on virginity; in our lit. one who has never engaged in sexual intercourse, virgin, chaste person
a.   female of marriageable age w. focus on virginity
b.   male virgin


When it is used in the LXX, it is outside the literature of BDAG and in Isaiah it has the general meaning, which is the same as the Hebrew word.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 02:59:56 PM by Brian Stoffregen »
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

David M. Frye, OblSB

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
    • WideSky.biz
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #227 on: November 17, 2010, 10:17:29 AM »
The Name is what was revealed (divine passive) to Israel.

Did Jesus reveal a name, recorded in the New Testament, for the God named by that Name?

Charles helped the discussion by citing the notes below from the ELCA Web site.

The first sentence of the second block of text shows where the ELCA's theology of language used to speak to God goes awry. It begins with "The image of father." When Jesus tells his followers, and all of us who overhear him, how to pray, he gives us the name to use, not an image to use. Thus "Father" is the proper name of the first person of the Trinity, not an image used to suggest qualities of the first person of the Trinity. As Dr. Jenson pointed out in his lecture in Columbus in August, giving us the name "Father" is the one new thing in the prayer. The rest is simply a compilation of what faithful Jews had always prayed.

"Father" is used of God in the OT. It is not new with Jesus. Consider Isaiah 64:8; Psalm 89:26-27 for a couple of examples.

All the more reason why your logic that "Father" is only a term of relationship rather than a proper noun falls flat... 


I see its use in the OT as a metaphor for the one who brought forth Israel. God's proper name is YHWH or I AM in the OT.

Quote
You would think that the continuity with the Old Testament would strengthen the resolve to use the name Father by the Church.  It did for the Church Fathers.  But instead the ELW makes it completely "optional" (you can, using the book itself, avoid the Name altogether...) and you have repeatedly gone on record saying that, because it is not a propper noun but a term of "relationship," that Father can be disposed of in favor of other adjectives.

The use of the Lord's Prayer with "Father" is not optional. The use of "God, the Father, " in baptisms is not optional. Where texts are quoting the scriptures, there are no options for "Father".

Quote
But, as the Old Testament uses the Name, Jesus uses the name, and the Church uses the name, how is it that we can see it as just one more "option"?

Because it is not a name. It is a term of relationship that corresponds with Son. Paul even uses the term, father, in a relational way that is not biological.
David M. Frye, OblSB

+ Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus.
+ That God may be glorified in all things.

Lutheranistic

  • Guest
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #228 on: November 17, 2010, 10:57:02 AM »
The heart of religion lies in its personal pronouns. - Martin Luther, 1483 - 1546

David M. Frye, OblSB

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
    • WideSky.biz
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #229 on: November 17, 2010, 12:23:45 PM »
And the faith of the Church is reflected in her use of those personal pronouns.

The heart of religion lies in its personal pronouns. - Martin Luther, 1483 - 1546
David M. Frye, OblSB

+ Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus.
+ That God may be glorified in all things.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42925
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #230 on: November 17, 2010, 03:21:02 PM »
The Name is what was revealed (divine passive) to Israel.

Did Jesus reveal a name, recorded in the New Testament, for the God named by that Name?

Jesus has a unique relationship that is included in the title "Father" that's related to our confession about the Virgin Mary.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #231 on: November 17, 2010, 03:32:52 PM »
On pronouns, I love the great thought from old Jacobs:

"It is the office of faith to change the plural pronouns of the Gospel into the singular number."  (Elements of Religion, p. 149)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42925
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #232 on: November 17, 2010, 03:43:55 PM »
On pronouns, I love the great thought from old Jacobs:

"It is the office of faith to change the plural pronouns of the Gospel into the singular number."  (Elements of Religion, p. 149)

I'd rather say that it is the office of faith to change third person pronouns to second person -- to talk to God rather than just talking about God.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #233 on: November 17, 2010, 03:45:50 PM »
I'm not sure I agree.  I mean, the Goats use the second person:  "When did we see you?" 

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42925
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #234 on: November 17, 2010, 04:04:19 PM »
I'm not sure I agree.  I mean, the Goats use the second person:  "When did we see you?" 

At least they are talking to the king, rather than talking to each other, "Who was he who was speaking to us?"
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

David M. Frye, OblSB

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
    • WideSky.biz
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #235 on: November 17, 2010, 04:53:09 PM »
But when he invites us to pray, "Our Father," he invites us to pray with him; he invites us into the relationship that he has with the Father.

As I read your reply, I wonder whether you are saying he is basically saying the following: "You may use 'Father," as a title. But in using that 'title,' you do not share a relationship with the one addressed in the same way that I share a unique relationship with that one."

It seems to me that to relegate the revealed name of the first person of the Trinity to the status of title is to invite the using of many other titles and to hold them all to be roughly equivalent, as titles which are not names.

I don't understand how you can hold this position and embrace the charge given to us in the Great Commission. Why did the risen Lord use "name"?

The Name is what was revealed (divine passive) to Israel.

Did Jesus reveal a name, recorded in the New Testament, for the God named by that Name?

Jesus has a unique relationship that is included in the title "Father" that's related to our confession about the Virgin Mary.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 05:20:19 AM by Pr. David Frye, OblSB »
David M. Frye, OblSB

+ Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus.
+ That God may be glorified in all things.

Richard Johnson

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10385
  • Create in me a clean heart, O God.
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #236 on: November 17, 2010, 05:19:06 PM »
But when he invites us to pray, "Our Father," he invites us to pray with him; he invites us into the relationship that he has with the Father.

Hmmm. . . interesting. I've not heard that before; what's the source of that interpretation? Patristic commentary that I've read has emphasized the fact that we never pray singly, but always with the whole Christian community.
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

Weedon

  • Guest
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #237 on: November 17, 2010, 05:22:53 PM »
Chrysostom, homily 19 on Matthew:

See how He straightway stirred up the hearer, and reminded him of all God's bounty in the beginning. For he who calls God Father, by him both remission of sins, and taking away of punishment, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, and adoption, and inheritance, and brotherhood with the Only-Begotten, and the supply of the Spirit, are acknowledged in this single title. For one cannot call God Father, without having attained to all those blessings.

David M. Frye, OblSB

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
    • WideSky.biz
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #238 on: November 17, 2010, 06:05:04 PM »
It's what I understood Robert Jenson to have said in his Columbus lecture from August, "Speaking To, Of, and For the Triune God." It was in the section on the "Our Father." Knowing him, I'm sure he said something like it way back in my systematics class at Gettysburg, but the details of those times are beyond recall!

Just looking at the prayer, the invitation to join him follows from the use of the first-person plural possessive: Our. We don't pray, "Father of Jesus, who art in heaven." We could, but that's not what he chose to teach us.

But when he invites us to pray, "Our Father," he invites us to pray with him; he invites us into the relationship that he has with the Father.

Hmmm. . . interesting. I've not heard that before; what's the source of that interpretation? Patristic commentary that I've read has emphasized the fact that we never pray singly, but always with the whole Christian community.
David M. Frye, OblSB

+ Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus.
+ That God may be glorified in all things.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42925
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Digging Deeper
« Reply #239 on: November 17, 2010, 07:14:10 PM »
I'm not sure I agree.  I mean, the Goats use the second person:  "When did we see you?" 

At least they are talking to the king, rather than talking to each other, "Who was he who was speaking to us?"

Wow, so in Pr. Stoffregen's ranking, the goats make out better than the disciples on the road to Emmaus.  ::)

1. The disciples on the road do speak directly to Jesus.
2. Neither goats nor sheep are disciples but, "nations of the world," a phrase that always means unbelievers in Matthew.
"The church had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]